a deep dissatisfaction with the���������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� situation, complaining that they often have to postpone trials or play the role of a translator due to the unavailability of a translator. While interpreters for the Russian language are more or less available, translators for other languages are very difficult to secure. Monitors observed that during the entire monitoring period, in Chişinău courts interpreters were not provided in 16% of the 1256 hearings where they were needed. The situation in the Southeast seems to be better. Interpreters were unavailable in only 2% of hearings where they were required. This figure, however, is based on observation of only 51 hearings where an interpreter was needed. Monitors observed that when interpreters were available, the quality of interpretation was often below standard. As noted above, Chapter II section 2.5., monitors noticed that interpreters as a rule did not translate everything to the person needing their services (most often the defendant). Usually the interpreter only summarized both the questions to the party and the party’s answers. Interpreters rarely translated the entire hearing for the party requiring interpretation. Monitors noted instances of poor interpretation, especially as a result of misinterpretation of legal terminology. Monitors noted that as a result of the lack of an interpreter or the poor quality of the translation, the judge often took the interpreter’s role, playing at once������������������������������������ the role��������������������������� of j���������������������� ����������������������� udge, interpreter and court clerk (dictating to the clerk what to write in the minutes). It is understandable that judges act in this way to speed up the procedure��������������������������������������������� ,�������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������� or����������������������������������������� many trials would drag o���������������� n��������������� . In taking on the role of interpreter, however, a judge risks compromising other important fair trial rights and principles. It is doubtful that a judge can maintain his or her unbiased and neutral role and fully focus on a court hearing while simultaneously interpreting and dictating to the court clerk. Monitors noted a few cases in which judges postponed a hearing due to the lack of an interpreter��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� , ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� stating that the right to an interpreter deserves proper attention. These were examples of good practice that more judges should be encouraged to follow. If more trials were delayed because of the lack of translation, the state might ������������������������������ take�������������������������� the issue more seriously and allocate sufficient resources for interpreters. Many of the problems cited above are not the fault of judges or interpreters. Specifically, interpreters do not have specialized legal-linguistic training and they do not receive adequate remuneration for their services. Monitor����������������������������������� s���������������������������������� did, however, observe ������������������� ����������� procedural violations and behavioural mistakes that could be prevented if judges and ������������������ interpreters took more responsibility.������������������������������������������������������������������� For example, in both Chişinău and in the Southeast monitors noted numerous cases in which interpreters were not warned of�������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������� the criminal liability for incorrect� ���������� interpretation. A final problem regarding interpretation, noted in the two previous monitoring reports, is the practice of conducting hearings interchangeably in two languages – the state language and Russian – without provision for interpretation. Participants in such cases were often confused as they were not all able to follow both languages and, consequently, the ������� entire proceeding. This practice created difficulties for the court clerk who had to translate and summarise the debates simultaneously. Under applicable law, the clerk was required to keep the minutes������������������������������������������������������������������������������ of the hearing in only one language, the language chosen for the proceedings in that case. 70